Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 581

control, N = 291

treatment, N = 291

p-value2

age

58

50.60 ± 12.71 (25 - 74)

49.40 ± 13.03 (25 - 74)

51.80 ± 12.50 (31 - 72)

0.476

gender

58

0.780

f

39 (67%)

19 (66%)

20 (69%)

m

19 (33%)

10 (34%)

9 (31%)

occupation

58

0.923

day_training

1 (1.7%)

1 (3.4%)

0 (0%)

full_time

6 (10%)

4 (14%)

2 (6.9%)

homemaker

4 (6.9%)

2 (6.9%)

2 (6.9%)

other

2 (3.4%)

0 (0%)

2 (6.9%)

part_time

9 (16%)

5 (17%)

4 (14%)

retired

14 (24%)

6 (21%)

8 (28%)

self_employ

2 (3.4%)

1 (3.4%)

1 (3.4%)

student

1 (1.7%)

0 (0%)

1 (3.4%)

t_and_e

2 (3.4%)

1 (3.4%)

1 (3.4%)

unemploy

17 (29%)

9 (31%)

8 (28%)

marital

58

>0.999

divore

5 (8.6%)

3 (10%)

2 (6.9%)

married

13 (22%)

6 (21%)

7 (24%)

none

34 (59%)

17 (59%)

17 (59%)

seperation

3 (5.2%)

2 (6.9%)

1 (3.4%)

widow

3 (5.2%)

1 (3.4%)

2 (6.9%)

edu

58

0.941

bachelor

18 (31%)

9 (31%)

9 (31%)

diploma

9 (16%)

6 (21%)

3 (10%)

hd_ad

2 (3.4%)

1 (3.4%)

1 (3.4%)

postgraduate

6 (10%)

3 (10%)

3 (10%)

primary

4 (6.9%)

1 (3.4%)

3 (10%)

secondary_1_3

4 (6.9%)

2 (6.9%)

2 (6.9%)

secondary_4_5

14 (24%)

7 (24%)

7 (24%)

secondary_6_7

1 (1.7%)

0 (0%)

1 (3.4%)

fam_income

58

0.817

10001_12000

3 (5.2%)

1 (3.4%)

2 (6.9%)

12001_14000

3 (5.2%)

2 (6.9%)

1 (3.4%)

14001_16000

5 (8.6%)

2 (6.9%)

3 (10%)

16001_18000

2 (3.4%)

1 (3.4%)

1 (3.4%)

18001_20000

3 (5.2%)

3 (10%)

0 (0%)

20001_above

9 (16%)

6 (21%)

3 (10%)

2001_4000

6 (10%)

3 (10%)

3 (10%)

4001_6000

9 (16%)

4 (14%)

5 (17%)

6001_8000

6 (10%)

3 (10%)

3 (10%)

8001_10000

4 (6.9%)

1 (3.4%)

3 (10%)

below_2000

8 (14%)

3 (10%)

5 (17%)

medication

58

48 (83%)

25 (86%)

23 (79%)

0.487

onset_duration

58

15.09 ± 12.16 (0 - 56)

17.01 ± 13.49 (1 - 56)

13.17 ± 10.56 (0 - 35)

0.233

onset_age

58

35.51 ± 13.74 (15 - 64)

32.39 ± 11.95 (16 - 55)

38.63 ± 14.87 (15 - 64)

0.084

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 581

control, N = 291

treatment, N = 291

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

58

3.24 ± 1.22 (1 - 5)

3.21 ± 1.26 (1 - 5)

3.28 ± 1.19 (1 - 5)

0.832

recovery_stage_b

58

17.98 ± 2.65 (9 - 23)

17.93 ± 2.84 (9 - 23)

18.03 ± 2.49 (14 - 23)

0.883

ras_confidence

58

30.22 ± 4.73 (19 - 40)

29.76 ± 4.34 (19 - 40)

30.69 ± 5.13 (20 - 39)

0.459

ras_willingness

58

12.12 ± 1.99 (7 - 15)

12.07 ± 1.77 (9 - 15)

12.17 ± 2.22 (7 - 15)

0.845

ras_goal

58

17.45 ± 2.87 (12 - 24)

17.48 ± 2.73 (12 - 23)

17.41 ± 3.04 (12 - 24)

0.928

ras_reliance

58

13.29 ± 2.91 (8 - 20)

13.07 ± 2.72 (8 - 18)

13.52 ± 3.11 (8 - 20)

0.562

ras_domination

58

9.95 ± 2.24 (3 - 15)

10.48 ± 1.88 (7 - 15)

9.41 ± 2.46 (3 - 14)

0.068

symptom

58

30.12 ± 9.75 (14 - 56)

29.66 ± 9.27 (14 - 48)

30.59 ± 10.35 (15 - 56)

0.720

slof_work

58

22.22 ± 4.83 (10 - 30)

22.41 ± 4.52 (15 - 30)

22.03 ± 5.19 (10 - 30)

0.768

slof_relationship

58

25.52 ± 5.92 (11 - 35)

25.34 ± 6.18 (13 - 35)

25.69 ± 5.75 (11 - 35)

0.827

satisfaction

58

20.72 ± 6.48 (5 - 30)

19.38 ± 6.06 (5 - 29)

22.07 ± 6.71 (5 - 30)

0.115

mhc_emotional

58

11.19 ± 3.71 (4 - 18)

10.97 ± 3.09 (6 - 17)

11.41 ± 4.28 (4 - 18)

0.649

mhc_social

58

14.50 ± 5.08 (6 - 26)

14.93 ± 5.09 (7 - 26)

14.07 ± 5.12 (6 - 23)

0.523

mhc_psychological

58

21.81 ± 5.97 (6 - 36)

21.48 ± 5.70 (10 - 33)

22.14 ± 6.30 (6 - 36)

0.680

resilisnce

58

16.52 ± 4.57 (6 - 25)

16.28 ± 4.46 (6 - 24)

16.76 ± 4.73 (7 - 25)

0.691

social_provision

58

13.67 ± 3.05 (5 - 20)

13.38 ± 2.72 (8 - 20)

13.97 ± 3.36 (5 - 19)

0.469

els_value_living

58

17.16 ± 2.97 (5 - 23)

16.72 ± 2.52 (12 - 22)

17.59 ± 3.35 (5 - 23)

0.273

els_life_fulfill

58

12.86 ± 3.27 (4 - 18)

11.83 ± 3.12 (5 - 17)

13.90 ± 3.14 (4 - 18)

0.015

els

58

30.02 ± 5.54 (9 - 40)

28.55 ± 4.53 (20 - 36)

31.48 ± 6.12 (9 - 40)

0.043

social_connect

58

26.93 ± 9.36 (8 - 48)

26.93 ± 8.11 (8 - 45)

26.93 ± 10.61 (8 - 48)

>0.999

shs_agency

58

14.26 ± 4.58 (3 - 20)

13.66 ± 4.25 (3 - 20)

14.86 ± 4.89 (3 - 20)

0.320

shs_pathway

58

16.50 ± 3.74 (4 - 22)

15.93 ± 3.50 (8 - 22)

17.07 ± 3.95 (4 - 22)

0.250

shs

58

30.76 ± 7.78 (7 - 42)

29.59 ± 7.37 (14 - 41)

31.93 ± 8.12 (7 - 42)

0.255

esteem

58

12.52 ± 1.25 (10 - 15)

12.55 ± 1.15 (10 - 14)

12.48 ± 1.35 (10 - 15)

0.835

mlq_search

58

14.81 ± 3.47 (3 - 21)

14.79 ± 3.27 (6 - 21)

14.83 ± 3.71 (3 - 20)

0.970

mlq_presence

58

13.60 ± 4.06 (3 - 21)

13.86 ± 3.13 (6 - 20)

13.34 ± 4.86 (3 - 21)

0.632

mlq

58

28.41 ± 6.81 (6 - 41)

28.66 ± 6.03 (12 - 40)

28.17 ± 7.62 (6 - 41)

0.790

empower

58

19.55 ± 4.26 (6 - 28)

19.24 ± 3.88 (11 - 24)

19.86 ± 4.67 (6 - 28)

0.584

ismi_resistance

58

14.62 ± 2.80 (5 - 20)

14.48 ± 2.34 (11 - 19)

14.76 ± 3.24 (5 - 20)

0.711

ismi_discrimation

58

11.36 ± 3.40 (5 - 19)

12.41 ± 2.86 (5 - 18)

10.31 ± 3.61 (5 - 19)

0.017

sss_affective

58

9.91 ± 4.07 (3 - 18)

10.66 ± 3.56 (3 - 18)

9.17 ± 4.46 (3 - 18)

0.167

sss_behavior

58

9.66 ± 4.17 (3 - 18)

10.52 ± 4.07 (3 - 18)

8.79 ± 4.15 (3 - 18)

0.116

sss_cognitive

58

8.28 ± 4.20 (3 - 18)

8.69 ± 4.38 (3 - 18)

7.86 ± 4.03 (3 - 18)

0.458

sss

58

27.84 ± 11.56 (9 - 54)

29.86 ± 10.74 (9 - 54)

25.83 ± 12.18 (9 - 54)

0.186

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.21

0.226

2.76, 3.65

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.069

0.319

-0.556, 0.694

0.829

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.291

0.342

-0.379, 0.961

0.399

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.003

0.468

-0.920, 0.914

0.995

Pseudo R square

0.014

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.511

16.9, 18.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.103

0.722

-1.31, 1.52

0.886

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.154

0.697

-1.52, 1.21

0.826

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.610

0.950

-1.25, 2.47

0.524

Pseudo R square

0.007

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.8

0.941

27.9, 31.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.931

1.331

-1.68, 3.54

0.487

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.497

0.990

-1.44, 2.44

0.619

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.074

1.346

-2.56, 2.71

0.956

Pseudo R square

0.012

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

12.1

0.378

11.3, 12.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.103

0.535

-0.945, 1.15

0.847

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.883

0.362

-1.59, -0.174

0.020

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.715

0.491

-0.248, 1.68

0.155

Pseudo R square

0.028

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.5

0.580

16.3, 18.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.069

0.820

-1.68, 1.54

0.933

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.852

0.625

-2.08, 0.373

0.181

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.47

0.850

-0.193, 3.14

0.091

Pseudo R square

0.018

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.1

0.531

12.0, 14.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.448

0.751

-1.02, 1.92

0.552

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.232

0.468

-0.685, 1.15

0.623

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.733

0.635

-0.512, 1.98

0.256

Pseudo R square

0.031

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.5

0.411

9.68, 11.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.07

0.581

-2.21, 0.070

0.070

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.471

0.543

-1.54, 0.594

0.391

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.32

0.741

-0.128, 2.78

0.081

Pseudo R square

0.039

symptom

(Intercept)

29.7

1.829

26.1, 33.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.931

2.587

-4.14, 6.00

0.720

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.639

1.269

-3.13, 1.85

0.618

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.229

1.721

-3.60, 3.14

0.895

Pseudo R square

0.003

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.4

0.906

20.6, 24.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.379

1.281

-2.89, 2.13

0.768

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.119

0.707

-1.50, 1.27

0.867

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.16

0.959

-3.04, 0.724

0.237

Pseudo R square

0.016

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

25.3

1.099

23.2, 27.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.345

1.554

-2.70, 3.39

0.825

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.19

1.009

-3.16, 0.793

0.248

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.595

1.371

-2.09, 3.28

0.667

Pseudo R square

0.008

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.4

1.255

16.9, 21.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.69

1.774

-0.788, 6.17

0.134

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.907

1.381

-1.80, 3.61

0.516

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.74

1.879

-5.42, 1.95

0.361

Pseudo R square

0.027

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

11.0

0.689

9.62, 12.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.448

0.974

-1.46, 2.36

0.647

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.722

0.638

-0.529, 1.97

0.266

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.27

0.867

-2.97, 0.432

0.153

Pseudo R square

0.007

mhc_social

(Intercept)

14.9

0.989

13.0, 16.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.862

1.399

-3.60, 1.88

0.540

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.22

1.073

-0.882, 3.33

0.262

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.32

1.459

-4.18, 1.54

0.371

Pseudo R square

0.021

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.5

1.175

19.2, 23.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.655

1.661

-2.60, 3.91

0.695

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.01

1.192

-1.33, 3.34

0.405

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.12

1.620

-5.29, 1.06

0.200

Pseudo R square

0.007

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.3

0.815

14.7, 17.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.483

1.153

-1.78, 2.74

0.677

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.543

0.758

-0.941, 2.03

0.478

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.167

1.029

-1.85, 2.18

0.872

Pseudo R square

0.009

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.4

0.554

12.3, 14.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.586

0.783

-0.948, 2.12

0.457

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.430

0.580

-1.57, 0.706

0.463

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.279

0.788

-1.27, 1.82

0.726

Pseudo R square

0.015

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.7

0.551

15.6, 17.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.862

0.780

-0.666, 2.39

0.273

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.617

0.552

-0.465, 1.70

0.271

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.450

0.750

-1.92, 1.02

0.552

Pseudo R square

0.019

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

11.8

0.563

10.7, 12.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.07

0.796

0.508, 3.63

0.012

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.12

0.576

-0.007, 2.25

0.059

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.941

0.783

-2.48, 0.593

0.237

Pseudo R square

0.091

els

(Intercept)

28.6

0.993

26.6, 30.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.93

1.404

0.180, 5.68

0.041

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.67

0.933

-0.162, 3.49

0.082

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.31

1.267

-3.80, 1.17

0.307

Pseudo R square

0.062

social_connect

(Intercept)

26.9

1.711

23.6, 30.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.000

2.419

-4.74, 4.74

1.00

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.659

1.338

-1.96, 3.28

0.626

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.590

1.816

-4.15, 2.97

0.747

Pseudo R square

0.001

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.7

0.859

12.0, 15.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.21

1.214

-1.17, 3.59

0.324

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.366

0.860

-1.32, 2.05

0.673

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.302

1.168

-1.99, 2.59

0.798

Pseudo R square

0.024

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.9

0.685

14.6, 17.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.14

0.969

-0.761, 3.04

0.245

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.599

0.601

-0.579, 1.78

0.326

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.754

0.816

-2.35, 0.845

0.362

Pseudo R square

0.017

shs

(Intercept)

29.6

1.437

26.8, 32.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.34

2.032

-1.64, 6.33

0.253

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.916

1.289

-1.61, 3.44

0.482

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.389

1.750

-3.82, 3.04

0.826

Pseudo R square

0.023

esteem

(Intercept)

12.6

0.229

12.1, 13.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.069

0.324

-0.704, 0.566

0.832

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.626

0.384

-0.127, 1.38

0.111

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.378

0.528

-1.41, 0.657

0.478

Pseudo R square

0.038

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.8

0.648

13.5, 16.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.034

0.916

-1.76, 1.83

0.970

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.029

0.806

-1.55, 1.61

0.971

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.143

1.098

-2.30, 2.01

0.897

Pseudo R square

0.000

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.9

0.745

12.4, 15.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.517

1.053

-2.58, 1.55

0.625

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.071

0.888

-1.81, 1.67

0.936

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.218

1.209

-2.15, 2.59

0.858

Pseudo R square

0.003

mlq

(Intercept)

28.7

1.282

26.1, 31.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.483

1.813

-4.04, 3.07

0.791

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.074

1.531

-3.08, 2.93

0.962

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.102

2.085

-3.98, 4.19

0.961

Pseudo R square

0.001

empower

(Intercept)

19.2

0.761

17.8, 20.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.621

1.076

-1.49, 2.73

0.566

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.145

0.714

-1.25, 1.54

0.840

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.844

0.969

-2.74, 1.06

0.390

Pseudo R square

0.005

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.5

0.488

13.5, 15.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.276

0.691

-1.08, 1.63

0.691

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.539

0.671

-0.776, 1.85

0.426

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.632

0.916

-2.43, 1.16

0.494

Pseudo R square

0.005

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.4

0.613

11.2, 13.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-2.10

0.867

-3.80, -0.404

0.018

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.975

0.597

-2.14, 0.195

0.111

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.55

0.811

-0.038, 3.14

0.064

Pseudo R square

0.065

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.7

0.721

9.24, 12.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.48

1.019

-3.48, 0.515

0.151

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.022

0.602

-1.16, 1.20

0.971

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.811

0.818

-2.41, 0.791

0.328

Pseudo R square

0.056

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.5

0.734

9.08, 12.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.72

1.038

-3.76, 0.311

0.102

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.283

0.652

-1.56, 0.996

0.667

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.363

0.886

-2.10, 1.37

0.684

Pseudo R square

0.057

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.69

0.764

7.19, 10.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.828

1.080

-2.94, 1.29

0.446

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.858

0.611

-0.341, 2.06

0.170

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.63

0.830

-3.25, -0.002

0.058

Pseudo R square

0.038

sss

(Intercept)

29.9

2.060

25.8, 33.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-4.03

2.913

-9.74, 1.68

0.171

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.662

1.545

-2.36, 3.69

0.671

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.88

2.095

-6.99, 1.23

0.178

Pseudo R square

0.056

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.29) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.21 (95% CI [2.76, 3.65], t(85) = 14.22, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.69], t(85) = 0.22, p = 0.829; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.58])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.96], t(85) = 0.85, p = 0.395; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.80])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.02e-03, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.91], t(85) = -6.47e-03, p = 0.995; Std. beta = -2.51e-03, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.76])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.45) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.34e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.93 (95% CI [16.93, 18.93], t(85) = 35.11, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-1.31, 1.52], t(85) = 0.14, p = 0.886; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.56])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-1.52, 1.21], t(85) = -0.22, p = 0.825; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.25, 2.47], t(85) = 0.64, p = 0.521; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.91])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.76 (95% CI [27.91, 31.60], t(85) = 31.62, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-1.68, 3.54], t(85) = 0.70, p = 0.484; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.70])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-1.44, 2.44], t(85) = 0.50, p = 0.616; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.48])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-2.56, 2.71], t(85) = 0.06, p = 0.956; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.54])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.07 (95% CI [11.33, 12.81], t(85) = 31.91, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.94, 1.15], t(85) = 0.19, p = 0.847; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.57])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-1.59, -0.17], t(85) = -2.44, p = 0.015; Std. beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-0.79, -0.09])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.68], t(85) = 1.45, p = 0.146; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.83])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.48 (95% CI [16.35, 18.62], t(85) = 30.13, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.68, 1.54], t(85) = -0.08, p = 0.933; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-2.08, 0.37], t(85) = -1.36, p = 0.173; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.12])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.47, 95% CI [-0.19, 3.14], t(85) = 1.73, p = 0.083; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.99])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.07 (95% CI [12.03, 14.11], t(85) = 24.62, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-1.02, 1.92], t(85) = 0.60, p = 0.550; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.65])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.15], t(85) = 0.50, p = 0.620; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.98], t(85) = 1.15, p = 0.249; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.67])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.48 (95% CI [9.68, 11.29], t(85) = 25.51, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.07, 95% CI [-2.21, 0.07], t(85) = -1.84, p = 0.066; Std. beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.03])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-1.54, 0.59], t(85) = -0.87, p = 0.386; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.32, 95% CI [-0.13, 2.78], t(85) = 1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.87) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.15e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.66 (95% CI [26.07, 33.24], t(85) = 16.21, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-4.14, 6.00], t(85) = 0.36, p = 0.719; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.60])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-3.13, 1.85], t(85) = -0.50, p = 0.614; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-3.60, 3.14], t(85) = -0.13, p = 0.894; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.31])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.41 (95% CI [20.64, 24.19], t(85) = 24.74, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-2.89, 2.13], t(85) = -0.30, p = 0.767; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.50, 1.27], t(85) = -0.17, p = 0.866; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.16, 95% CI [-3.04, 0.72], t(85) = -1.21, p = 0.228; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.15])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.56e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.34 (95% CI [23.19, 27.50], t(85) = 23.07, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-2.70, 3.39], t(85) = 0.22, p = 0.824; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.59])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.19, 95% CI [-3.16, 0.79], t(85) = -1.17, p = 0.240; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.14])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-2.09, 3.28], t(85) = 0.43, p = 0.664; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.57])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.38 (95% CI [16.92, 21.84], t(85) = 15.45, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.69, 95% CI [-0.79, 6.17], t(85) = 1.52, p = 0.130; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.90])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-1.80, 3.61], t(85) = 0.66, p = 0.512; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.53])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.74, 95% CI [-5.42, 1.95], t(85) = -0.92, p = 0.355; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.78e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.97 (95% CI [9.62, 12.32], t(85) = 15.92, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-1.46, 2.36], t(85) = 0.46, p = 0.645; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.64])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.53, 1.97], t(85) = 1.13, p = 0.258; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.54])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.27, 95% CI [-2.97, 0.43], t(85) = -1.46, p = 0.144; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.12])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.93 (95% CI [12.99, 16.87], t(85) = 15.09, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.86, 95% CI [-3.60, 1.88], t(85) = -0.62, p = 0.538; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.35])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.22, 95% CI [-0.88, 3.33], t(85) = 1.14, p = 0.255; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.62])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.32, 95% CI [-4.18, 1.54], t(85) = -0.91, p = 0.365; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.61e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.48 (95% CI [19.18, 23.79], t(85) = 18.29, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-2.60, 3.91], t(85) = 0.39, p = 0.693; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.62])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-1.33, 3.34], t(85) = 0.84, p = 0.399; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.53])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.12, 95% CI [-5.29, 1.06], t(85) = -1.31, p = 0.192; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.84, 0.17])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.08e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.28 (95% CI [14.68, 17.87], t(85) = 19.96, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-1.78, 2.74], t(85) = 0.42, p = 0.675; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.63])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.94, 2.03], t(85) = 0.72, p = 0.473; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.47])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.85, 2.18], t(85) = 0.16, p = 0.871; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.38 (95% CI [12.29, 14.46], t(85) = 24.17, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.95, 2.12], t(85) = 0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.71])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.57, 0.71], t(85) = -0.74, p = 0.458; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.27, 1.82], t(85) = 0.35, p = 0.724; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.61])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.72 (95% CI [15.64, 17.80], t(85) = 30.33, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.67, 2.39], t(85) = 1.11, p = 0.269; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.79])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.70], t(85) = 1.12, p = 0.263; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.56])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.92, 1.02], t(85) = -0.60, p = 0.549; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.09. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.83 (95% CI [10.72, 12.93], t(85) = 21.00, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.07, 95% CI [0.51, 3.63], t(85) = 2.60, p = 0.009; Std. beta = 0.66, 95% CI [0.16, 1.16])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [-7.24e-03, 2.25], t(85) = 1.95, p = 0.051; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-2.31e-03, 0.72])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-2.48, 0.59], t(85) = -1.20, p = 0.229; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.55 (95% CI [26.61, 30.50], t(85) = 28.76, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.93, 95% CI [0.18, 5.68], t(85) = 2.09, p = 0.037; Std. beta = 0.53, 95% CI [0.03, 1.03])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.67, 95% CI [-0.16, 3.49], t(85) = 1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.63])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.31, 95% CI [-3.80, 1.17], t(85) = -1.04, p = 0.300; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.85e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.93 (95% CI [23.58, 30.28], t(85) = 15.74, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01e-13, 95% CI [-4.74, 4.74], t(85) = 4.18e-14, p > .999; Std. beta = 1.51e-16, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-1.96, 3.28], t(85) = 0.49, p = 0.622; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-4.15, 2.97], t(85) = -0.32, p = 0.745; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.66 (95% CI [11.97, 15.34], t(85) = 15.90, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.21, 95% CI [-1.17, 3.59], t(85) = 0.99, p = 0.320; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.77])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-1.32, 2.05], t(85) = 0.43, p = 0.670; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-1.99, 2.59], t(85) = 0.26, p = 0.796; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.56])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.93 (95% CI [14.59, 17.27], t(85) = 23.25, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.14, 95% CI [-0.76, 3.04], t(85) = 1.17, p = 0.240; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.83])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.78], t(85) = 1.00, p = 0.319; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.48])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.75, 95% CI [-2.35, 0.84], t(85) = -0.92, p = 0.355; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.59 (95% CI [26.77, 32.40], t(85) = 20.59, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.34, 95% CI [-1.64, 6.33], t(85) = 1.15, p = 0.248; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.81])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-1.61, 3.44], t(85) = 0.71, p = 0.477; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-3.82, 3.04], t(85) = -0.22, p = 0.824; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.39])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is weak (conditional R2 = 0.09) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.55 (95% CI [12.10, 13.00], t(85) = 54.78, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.57], t(85) = -0.21, p = 0.831; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.38], t(85) = 1.63, p = 0.103; Std. beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.10, 1.11])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.41, 0.66], t(85) = -0.72, p = 0.474; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.14, 0.53])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.47e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.79 (95% CI [13.52, 16.06], t(85) = 22.83, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.76, 1.83], t(85) = 0.04, p = 0.970; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.55, 1.61], t(85) = 0.04, p = 0.971; Std. beta = 8.59e-03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.47])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-2.30, 2.01], t(85) = -0.13, p = 0.896; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.59])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.18e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.86 (95% CI [12.40, 15.32], t(85) = 18.62, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-2.58, 1.55], t(85) = -0.49, p = 0.623; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.81, 1.67], t(85) = -0.08, p = 0.936; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.42])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-2.15, 2.59], t(85) = 0.18, p = 0.857; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.65])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.07e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.66 (95% CI [26.14, 31.17], t(85) = 22.35, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-4.04, 3.07], t(85) = -0.27, p = 0.790; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-3.08, 2.93], t(85) = -0.05, p = 0.962; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-3.98, 4.19], t(85) = 0.05, p = 0.961; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.62])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.09e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.24 (95% CI [17.75, 20.73], t(85) = 25.30, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-1.49, 2.73], t(85) = 0.58, p = 0.564; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.67])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.25, 1.54], t(85) = 0.20, p = 0.839; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.84, 95% CI [-2.74, 1.06], t(85) = -0.87, p = 0.384; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.44) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.86e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.48 (95% CI [13.53, 15.44], t(85) = 29.65, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.08, 1.63], t(85) = 0.40, p = 0.690; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.63])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.85], t(85) = 0.80, p = 0.422; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.71])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-2.43, 1.16], t(85) = -0.69, p = 0.490; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.45])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.21, 13.62], t(85) = 20.25, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.10, 95% CI [-3.80, -0.40], t(85) = -2.43, p = 0.015; Std. beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.13, -0.12])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.97, 95% CI [-2.14, 0.19], t(85) = -1.63, p = 0.102; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.06])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.55, 95% CI [-0.04, 3.14], t(85) = 1.91, p = 0.056; Std. beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.94])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.66 (95% CI [9.24, 12.07], t(85) = 14.79, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.48, 95% CI [-3.48, 0.51], t(85) = -1.46, p = 0.146; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.13])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.16, 1.20], t(85) = 0.04, p = 0.971; Std. beta = 5.51e-03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.81, 95% CI [-2.41, 0.79], t(85) = -0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.52 (95% CI [9.08, 11.96], t(85) = 14.33, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.72, 95% CI [-3.76, 0.31], t(85) = -1.66, p = 0.097; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.08])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.56, 1.00], t(85) = -0.43, p = 0.665; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-2.10, 1.37], t(85) = -0.41, p = 0.682; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.69 (95% CI [7.19, 10.19], t(85) = 11.38, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-2.94, 1.29], t(85) = -0.77, p = 0.444; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.32])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.34, 2.06], t(85) = 1.40, p = 0.161; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.51])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.63, 95% CI [-3.25, -2.37e-03], t(85) = -1.96, p = 0.050; Std. beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.80, -5.84e-04])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.86 (95% CI [25.82, 33.90], t(85) = 14.50, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -4.03, 95% CI [-9.74, 1.68], t(85) = -1.38, p = 0.166; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.15])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-2.36, 3.69], t(85) = 0.43, p = 0.668; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.88, 95% CI [-6.99, 1.23], t(85) = -1.37, p = 0.169; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.11])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

294.543

302.075

-144.271

288.543

recovery_stage_a

random

6

298.862

313.927

-143.431

286.862

1.681

3

0.641

recovery_stage_b

null

3

437.836

445.369

-215.918

431.836

recovery_stage_b

random

6

443.034

458.100

-215.517

431.034

0.802

3

0.849

ras_confidence

null

3

535.431

542.964

-264.715

529.431

ras_confidence

random

6

540.151

555.216

-264.076

528.151

1.280

3

0.734

ras_willingness

null

3

368.545

376.077

-181.272

362.545

ras_willingness

random

6

368.552

383.618

-178.276

356.552

5.992

3

0.112

ras_goal

null

3

450.772

458.304

-222.386

444.772

ras_goal

random

6

453.466

468.531

-220.733

441.466

3.306

3

0.347

ras_reliance

null

3

425.441

432.973

-209.720

419.441

ras_reliance

random

6

425.247

440.312

-206.623

413.247

6.194

3

0.103

ras_domination

null

3

401.069

408.602

-197.535

395.069

ras_domination

random

6

401.946

417.011

-194.973

389.946

5.124

3

0.163

symptom

null

3

630.397

637.929

-312.198

624.397

symptom

random

6

635.436

650.501

-311.718

623.436

0.960

3

0.811

slof_work

null

3

513.263

520.796

-253.632

507.263

slof_work

random

6

515.009

530.074

-251.504

503.009

4.254

3

0.235

slof_relationship

null

3

556.047

563.579

-275.023

550.047

slof_relationship

random

6

560.184

575.249

-274.092

548.184

1.862

3

0.601

satisfaction

null

3

591.699

599.231

-292.849

585.699

satisfaction

random

6

595.114

610.179

-291.557

583.114

2.585

3

0.460

mhc_emotional

null

3

471.966

479.498

-232.983

465.966

mhc_emotional

random

6

475.773

490.838

-231.886

463.773

2.193

3

0.533

mhc_social

null

3

547.286

554.818

-270.643

541.286

mhc_social

random

6

551.031

566.097

-269.516

539.031

2.254

3

0.521

mhc_psychological

null

3

574.170

581.702

-284.085

568.170

mhc_psychological

random

6

578.383

593.449

-283.192

566.383

1.786

3

0.618

resilisnce

null

3

502.499

510.032

-248.250

496.499

resilisnce

random

6

506.616

521.681

-247.308

494.616

1.883

3

0.597

social_provision

null

3

438.769

446.301

-216.384

432.769

social_provision

random

6

443.305

458.370

-215.653

431.305

1.463

3

0.691

els_value_living

null

3

436.374

443.906

-215.187

430.374

els_value_living

random

6

439.939

455.004

-213.970

427.939

2.434

3

0.487

els_life_fulfill

null

3

448.504

456.037

-221.252

442.504

els_life_fulfill

random

6

445.026

460.092

-216.513

433.026

9.478

3

0.024

els

null

3

544.150

551.682

-269.075

538.150

els

random

6

543.092

558.157

-265.546

531.092

7.058

3

0.070

social_connect

null

3

625.090

632.622

-309.545

619.090

social_connect

random

6

630.823

645.888

-309.412

618.823

0.266

3

0.966

shs_agency

null

3

516.778

524.311

-255.389

510.778

shs_agency

random

6

520.512

535.577

-254.256

508.512

2.267

3

0.519

shs_pathway

null

3

467.528

475.061

-230.764

461.528

shs_pathway

random

6

471.426

486.491

-229.713

459.426

2.102

3

0.552

shs

null

3

603.640

611.172

-298.820

597.640

shs

random

6

607.552

622.617

-297.776

595.552

2.088

3

0.554

esteem

null

3

301.966

309.499

-147.983

295.966

esteem

random

6

304.309

319.374

-146.154

292.309

3.657

3

0.301

mlq_search

null

3

475.677

483.210

-234.839

469.677

mlq_search

random

6

481.651

496.716

-234.825

469.651

0.026

3

0.999

mlq_presence

null

3

498.931

506.464

-246.466

492.931

mlq_presence

random

6

504.676

519.741

-246.338

492.676

0.255

3

0.968

mlq

null

3

597.736

605.269

-295.868

591.736

mlq

random

6

603.660

618.725

-295.830

591.660

0.076

3

0.995

empower

null

3

489.885

497.418

-241.943

483.885

empower

random

6

494.538

509.604

-241.269

482.538

1.347

3

0.718

ismi_resistance

null

3

429.961

437.493

-211.980

423.961

ismi_resistance

random

6

435.256

450.321

-211.628

423.256

0.705

3

0.872

ismi_discrimation

null

3

459.240

466.772

-226.620

453.240

ismi_discrimation

random

6

457.533

472.598

-222.767

445.533

7.707

3

0.052

sss_affective

null

3

476.840

484.372

-235.420

470.840

sss_affective

random

6

477.614

492.679

-232.807

465.614

5.226

3

0.156

sss_behavior

null

3

483.614

491.147

-238.807

477.614

sss_behavior

random

6

484.772

499.837

-236.386

472.772

4.843

3

0.184

sss_cognitive

null

3

484.873

492.406

-239.437

478.873

sss_cognitive

random

6

485.509

500.574

-236.754

473.509

5.365

3

0.147

sss

null

3

661.691

669.224

-327.846

655.691

sss

random

6

661.988

677.053

-324.994

649.988

5.703

3

0.127

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

29

3.21 ± 1.21

29

3.28 ± 1.21

0.829

-0.067

recovery_stage_a

2nd

15

3.50 ± 1.21

-0.282

18

3.56 ± 1.21

-0.279

0.876

-0.064

recovery_stage_b

1st

29

17.93 ± 2.75

29

18.03 ± 2.75

0.886

-0.050

recovery_stage_b

2nd

15

17.78 ± 2.64

0.075

18

18.49 ± 2.67

-0.223

0.444

-0.348

ras_confidence

1st

29

29.76 ± 5.07

29

30.69 ± 5.07

0.487

-0.330

ras_confidence

2nd

15

30.26 ± 4.47

-0.176

18

31.26 ± 4.60

-0.202

0.527

-0.357

ras_willingness

1st

29

12.07 ± 2.04

29

12.17 ± 2.04

0.847

-0.101

ras_willingness

2nd

15

11.19 ± 1.75

0.864

18

12.00 ± 1.81

0.164

0.191

-0.800

ras_goal

1st

29

17.48 ± 3.12

29

17.41 ± 3.12

0.933

0.039

ras_goal

2nd

15

16.63 ± 2.77

0.478

18

18.03 ± 2.85

-0.348

0.157

-0.787

ras_reliance

1st

29

13.07 ± 2.86

29

13.52 ± 2.86

0.553

-0.341

ras_reliance

2nd

15

13.30 ± 2.40

-0.176

18

14.48 ± 2.50

-0.733

0.171

-0.898

ras_domination

1st

29

10.48 ± 2.21

29

9.41 ± 2.21

0.070

0.672

ras_domination

2nd

15

10.01 ± 2.10

0.296

18

10.27 ± 2.13

-0.536

0.732

-0.160

symptom

1st

29

29.66 ± 9.85

29

30.59 ± 9.85

0.720

-0.264

symptom

2nd

15

29.02 ± 7.85

0.181

18

29.72 ± 8.32

0.246

0.804

-0.199

slof_work

1st

29

22.41 ± 4.88

29

22.03 ± 4.88

0.768

0.192

slof_work

2nd

15

22.29 ± 3.98

0.060

18

20.76 ± 4.19

0.645

0.284

0.777

slof_relationship

1st

29

25.34 ± 5.92

29

25.69 ± 5.92

0.825

-0.121

slof_relationship

2nd

15

24.16 ± 5.02

0.417

18

25.10 ± 5.22

0.208

0.600

-0.330

satisfaction

1st

29

19.38 ± 6.76

29

22.07 ± 6.76

0.134

-0.681

satisfaction

2nd

15

20.29 ± 6.04

-0.230

18

21.24 ± 6.20

0.210

0.657

-0.241

mhc_emotional

1st

29

10.97 ± 3.71

29

11.41 ± 3.71

0.647

-0.249

mhc_emotional

2nd

15

11.69 ± 3.15

-0.401

18

10.87 ± 3.28

0.303

0.468

0.455

mhc_social

1st

29

14.93 ± 5.33

29

14.07 ± 5.33

0.540

0.281

mhc_social

2nd

15

16.15 ± 4.74

-0.399

18

13.97 ± 4.87

0.033

0.197

0.713

mhc_psychological

1st

29

21.48 ± 6.33

29

22.14 ± 6.33

0.695

-0.194

mhc_psychological

2nd

15

22.49 ± 5.52

-0.297

18

21.03 ± 5.70

0.328

0.458

0.432

resilisnce

1st

29

16.28 ± 4.39

29

16.76 ± 4.39

0.677

-0.226

resilisnce

2nd

15

16.82 ± 3.73

-0.254

18

17.47 ± 3.88

-0.333

0.626

-0.304

social_provision

1st

29

13.38 ± 2.98

29

13.97 ± 2.98

0.457

-0.355

social_provision

2nd

15

12.95 ± 2.62

0.261

18

13.81 ± 2.71

0.092

0.355

-0.524

els_value_living

1st

29

16.72 ± 2.97

29

17.59 ± 2.97

0.273

-0.551

els_value_living

2nd

15

17.34 ± 2.58

-0.394

18

17.75 ± 2.67

-0.107

0.654

-0.263

els_life_fulfill

1st

29

11.83 ± 3.03

29

13.90 ± 3.03

0.012

-1.264

els_life_fulfill

2nd

15

12.95 ± 2.65

-0.686

18

14.08 ± 2.74

-0.110

0.234

-0.689

els

1st

29

28.55 ± 5.35

29

31.48 ± 5.35

0.041

-1.113

els

2nd

15

30.22 ± 4.56

-0.633

18

31.84 ± 4.74

-0.134

0.322

-0.614

social_connect

1st

29

26.93 ± 9.21

29

26.93 ± 9.21

1.000

0.000

social_connect

2nd

15

27.59 ± 7.52

-0.176

18

27.00 ± 7.91

-0.019

0.827

0.158

shs_agency

1st

29

13.66 ± 4.62

29

14.86 ± 4.62

0.324

-0.495

shs_agency

2nd

15

14.02 ± 4.02

-0.150

18

15.53 ± 4.15

-0.274

0.293

-0.619

shs_pathway

1st

29

15.93 ± 3.69

29

17.07 ± 3.69

0.245

-0.674

shs_pathway

2nd

15

16.53 ± 3.09

-0.355

18

16.91 ± 3.23

0.092

0.729

-0.227

shs

1st

29

29.59 ± 7.74

29

31.93 ± 7.74

0.253

-0.646

shs

2nd

15

30.50 ± 6.52

-0.253

18

32.46 ± 6.80

-0.145

0.402

-0.539

esteem

1st

29

12.55 ± 1.23

29

12.48 ± 1.23

0.832

0.058

esteem

2nd

15

13.18 ± 1.25

-0.523

18

12.73 ± 1.25

-0.207

0.310

0.373

mlq_search

1st

29

14.79 ± 3.49

29

14.83 ± 3.49

0.970

-0.015

mlq_search

2nd

15

14.82 ± 3.25

-0.013

18

14.71 ± 3.30

0.049

0.924

0.047

mlq_presence

1st

29

13.86 ± 4.01

29

13.34 ± 4.01

0.625

0.202

mlq_presence

2nd

15

13.79 ± 3.68

0.028

18

13.49 ± 3.75

-0.057

0.819

0.117

mlq

1st

29

28.66 ± 6.90

29

28.17 ± 6.90

0.791

0.109

mlq

2nd

15

28.58 ± 6.34

0.017

18

28.20 ± 6.47

-0.006

0.865

0.086

empower

1st

29

19.24 ± 4.10

29

19.86 ± 4.10

0.566

-0.308

empower

2nd

15

19.39 ± 3.49

-0.072

18

19.16 ± 3.63

0.347

0.858

0.111

ismi_resistance

1st

29

14.48 ± 2.63

29

14.76 ± 2.63

0.691

-0.139

ismi_resistance

2nd

15

15.02 ± 2.53

-0.273

18

14.67 ± 2.56

0.047

0.690

0.180

ismi_discrimation

1st

29

12.41 ± 3.30

29

10.31 ± 3.30

0.018

1.246

ismi_discrimation

2nd

15

11.44 ± 2.84

0.577

18

10.89 ± 2.95

-0.341

0.586

0.327

sss_affective

1st

29

10.66 ± 3.88

29

9.17 ± 3.88

0.151

0.878

sss_affective

2nd

15

10.68 ± 3.21

-0.013

18

8.38 ± 3.37

0.467

0.049

1.358

sss_behavior

1st

29

10.52 ± 3.95

29

8.79 ± 3.95

0.102

0.940

sss_behavior

2nd

15

10.23 ± 3.32

0.154

18

8.15 ± 3.47

0.352

0.082

1.138

sss_cognitive

1st

29

8.69 ± 4.11

29

7.86 ± 4.11

0.446

0.484

sss_cognitive

2nd

15

9.55 ± 3.37

-0.501

18

7.09 ± 3.54

0.451

0.045

1.436

sss

1st

29

29.86 ± 11.09

29

25.83 ± 11.09

0.171

0.936

sss

2nd

15

30.52 ± 8.97

-0.154

18

23.61 ± 9.47

0.515

0.035

1.605

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(82.47) = 0.22, p = 0.829, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.57 to 0.70)

2st

t(86.87) = 0.16, p = 0.876, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.77 to 0.91)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(76.77) = 0.14, p = 0.886, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.54)

2st

t(86.94) = 0.77, p = 0.444, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-1.13 to 2.56)

ras_confidence

1st

t(66.97) = 0.70, p = 0.487, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-1.73 to 3.59)

2st

t(86.04) = 0.63, p = 0.527, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-2.14 to 4.15)

ras_willingness

1st

t(64.75) = 0.19, p = 0.847, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.96 to 1.17)

2st

t(84.59) = 1.32, p = 0.191, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (-0.42 to 2.05)

ras_goal

1st

t(67.61) = -0.08, p = 0.933, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.71 to 1.57)

2st

t(86.30) = 1.43, p = 0.157, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (-0.55 to 3.36)

ras_reliance

1st

t(63.24) = 0.60, p = 0.553, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.05 to 1.95)

2st

t(82.85) = 1.38, p = 0.171, Cohen d = -0.90, 95% CI (-0.52 to 2.88)

ras_domination

1st

t(75.24) = -1.84, p = 0.070, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-2.23 to 0.09)

2st

t(86.97) = 0.34, p = 0.732, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.22 to 1.72)

symptom

1st

t(60.24) = 0.36, p = 0.720, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-4.24 to 6.10)

2st

t(76.35) = 0.25, p = 0.804, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-4.91 to 6.32)

slof_work

1st

t(61.49) = -0.30, p = 0.768, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-2.94 to 2.18)

2st

t(79.68) = -1.08, p = 0.284, Cohen d = 0.78, 95% CI (-4.37 to 1.30)

slof_relationship

1st

t(63.97) = 0.22, p = 0.825, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.76 to 3.45)

2st

t(83.79) = 0.53, p = 0.600, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-2.61 to 4.49)

satisfaction

1st

t(68.26) = 1.52, p = 0.134, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-0.85 to 6.23)

2st

t(86.50) = 0.45, p = 0.657, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-3.30 to 5.20)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(64.13) = 0.46, p = 0.647, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.50 to 2.39)

2st

t(83.96) = -0.73, p = 0.468, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-3.05 to 1.41)

mhc_social

1st

t(67.82) = -0.62, p = 0.540, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-3.65 to 1.93)

2st

t(86.37) = -1.30, p = 0.197, Cohen d = 0.71, 95% CI (-5.52 to 1.15)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(66.07) = 0.39, p = 0.695, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-2.66 to 3.97)

2st

t(85.58) = -0.75, p = 0.458, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-5.35 to 2.43)

resilisnce

1st

t(64.18) = 0.42, p = 0.677, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.82 to 2.79)

2st

t(84.02) = 0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.99 to 3.29)

social_provision

1st

t(66.85) = 0.75, p = 0.457, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.98 to 2.15)

2st

t(85.99) = 0.93, p = 0.355, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.98 to 2.71)

els_value_living

1st

t(65.75) = 1.11, p = 0.273, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.70 to 2.42)

2st

t(85.38) = 0.45, p = 0.654, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.41 to 2.23)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(66.27) = 2.60, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -1.26, 95% CI (0.48 to 3.66)

2st

t(85.69) = 1.20, p = 0.234, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-0.74 to 3.00)

els

1st

t(64.40) = 2.09, p = 0.041, Cohen d = -1.11, 95% CI (0.13 to 5.74)

2st

t(84.25) = 1.00, p = 0.322, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-1.61 to 4.84)

social_connect

1st

t(61.52) = 0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-4.84 to 4.84)

2st

t(79.75) = -0.22, p = 0.827, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-5.95 to 4.77)

shs_agency

1st

t(65.75) = 0.99, p = 0.324, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-1.22 to 3.63)

2st

t(85.37) = 1.06, p = 0.293, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-1.33 to 4.34)

shs_pathway

1st

t(63.16) = 1.17, p = 0.245, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-0.80 to 3.07)

2st

t(82.74) = 0.35, p = 0.729, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.81 to 2.58)

shs

1st

t(63.54) = 1.15, p = 0.253, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-1.71 to 6.40)

2st

t(83.26) = 0.84, p = 0.402, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-2.67 to 6.58)

esteem

1st

t(86.79) = -0.21, p = 0.832, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.71 to 0.58)

2st

t(86.99) = -1.02, p = 0.310, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.32 to 0.42)

mlq_search

1st

t(72.58) = 0.04, p = 0.970, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.79 to 1.86)

2st

t(86.99) = -0.10, p = 0.924, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.38 to 2.17)

mlq_presence

1st

t(70.93) = -0.49, p = 0.625, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-2.62 to 1.58)

2st

t(86.92) = -0.23, p = 0.819, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-2.88 to 2.28)

mlq

1st

t(70.96) = -0.27, p = 0.791, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-4.10 to 3.13)

2st

t(86.93) = -0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-4.83 to 4.07)

empower

1st

t(64.37) = 0.58, p = 0.566, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-1.53 to 2.77)

2st

t(84.23) = -0.18, p = 0.858, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-2.70 to 2.25)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(77.17) = 0.40, p = 0.691, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.10 to 1.65)

2st

t(86.93) = -0.40, p = 0.690, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.12 to 1.41)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(65.12) = -2.43, p = 0.018, Cohen d = 1.25, 95% CI (-3.84 to -0.37)

2st

t(84.91) = -0.55, p = 0.586, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-2.56 to 1.46)

sss_affective

1st

t(62.42) = -1.46, p = 0.151, Cohen d = 0.88, 95% CI (-3.52 to 0.55)

2st

t(81.54) = -2.00, p = 0.049, Cohen d = 1.36, 95% CI (-4.58 to -0.01)

sss_behavior

1st

t(63.38) = -1.66, p = 0.102, Cohen d = 0.94, 95% CI (-3.80 to 0.35)

2st

t(83.04) = -1.76, p = 0.082, Cohen d = 1.14, 95% CI (-4.44 to 0.27)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(61.82) = -0.77, p = 0.446, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-2.99 to 1.33)

2st

t(80.39) = -2.04, p = 0.045, Cohen d = 1.44, 95% CI (-4.86 to -0.05)

sss

1st

t(61.03) = -1.38, p = 0.171, Cohen d = 0.94, 95% CI (-9.86 to 1.79)

2st

t(78.56) = -2.15, p = 0.035, Cohen d = 1.60, 95% CI (-13.32 to -0.51)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(42.26) = 0.89, p = 0.752, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.94)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(39.23) = 0.70, p = 0.976, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.77)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(35.16) = 0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.29 to 2.43)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(34.30) = -0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.51)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(35.41) = 1.07, p = 0.583, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.79)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(33.73) = 2.24, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.84)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(38.54) = 1.68, p = 0.201, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.88)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(32.60) = -0.75, p = 0.923, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-3.24 to 1.50)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(33.07) = -1.96, p = 0.117, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-2.60 to 0.05)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(34.01) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-2.48 to 1.30)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(35.66) = -0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-3.43 to 1.77)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(34.07) = -0.93, p = 0.722, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.74 to 0.65)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(35.49) = -0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.12 to 1.92)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(34.81) = -1.01, p = 0.642, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-3.35 to 1.13)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(34.09) = 1.02, p = 0.633, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.71 to 2.13)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(35.11) = -0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.24 to 0.94)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(34.69) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.87 to 1.20)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(34.88) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.90 to 1.26)

els

1st vs 2st

t(34.17) = 0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.40 to 2.10)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(33.08) = 0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.43 to 2.57)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(34.68) = 0.84, p = 0.812, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.95 to 2.28)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(33.70) = -0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.97)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(33.84) = 0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.89 to 2.94)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(46.58) = 0.68, p = 0.999, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.98)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(37.40) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.63 to 1.41)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(36.72) = 0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.53 to 1.82)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(36.73) = 0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-2.86 to 2.91)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(34.16) = -1.06, p = 0.592, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-2.04 to 0.64)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(39.42) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.36 to 1.18)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(34.44) = 1.05, p = 0.606, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.70)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(33.42) = -1.42, p = 0.328, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-1.92 to 0.34)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(33.78) = -1.07, p = 0.580, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.87 to 0.58)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(33.19) = -1.37, p = 0.359, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-1.92 to 0.37)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(32.90) = -1.56, p = 0.255, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-5.11 to 0.67)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(45.69) = 0.84, p = 0.809, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.40 to 0.99)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(41.72) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.57 to 1.27)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(36.37) = 0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.52 to 2.52)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(35.26) = -2.43, p = 0.041, Cohen d = 0.86, 95% CI (-1.62 to -0.14)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(36.70) = -1.35, p = 0.368, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-2.13 to 0.42)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(34.51) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.19)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(40.81) = -0.86, p = 0.792, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.58 to 0.64)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(33.05) = -0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-3.23 to 1.95)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(33.66) = -0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.56 to 1.32)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(34.87) = -1.17, p = 0.501, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-3.25 to 0.87)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(37.02) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.91 to 3.73)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(34.95) = 1.13, p = 0.536, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.58 to 2.02)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(36.80) = 1.13, p = 0.531, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.97 to 3.41)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(35.92) = 0.84, p = 0.815, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.43 to 3.44)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(34.97) = 0.71, p = 0.960, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.00 to 2.09)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(36.31) = -0.74, p = 0.931, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.61 to 0.75)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(35.76) = 1.11, p = 0.547, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.51 to 1.74)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(36.01) = 1.94, p = 0.122, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-0.05 to 2.30)

els

1st vs 2st

t(35.08) = 1.78, p = 0.168, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-0.24 to 3.57)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(33.67) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-2.07 to 3.39)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(35.75) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.39 to 2.12)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(34.47) = 0.99, p = 0.656, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.83)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(34.66) = 0.71, p = 0.968, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.71 to 3.55)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(51.24) = 1.61, p = 0.226, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.41)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(39.31) = 0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.62 to 1.67)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(38.42) = -0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.88 to 1.74)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(38.44) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-3.20 to 3.05)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(35.07) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.31 to 1.60)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(41.97) = 0.80, p = 0.862, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.83 to 1.91)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(35.44) = -1.62, p = 0.226, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-2.19 to 0.24)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(34.11) = 0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.25)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(34.58) = -0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.61 to 1.05)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(33.82) = 1.40, p = 0.343, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.39 to 2.11)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(33.43) = 0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-2.49 to 3.81)

Plot

Clinical significance